Document Info

DocketNumber: 09-20 504

Filed Date: 3/31/2014

Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021

  • Citation Nr: 1413831
    Decision Date: 03/31/14    Archive Date: 04/10/14
    DOCKET NO.  09-20 504	)	DATE
    )
    On appeal from the
    Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida
    THE ISSUE
    Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss.
    REPRESENTATION
    Veteran represented by:	Disabled American Veterans
    WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL
    Veteran and his spouse
    ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
    Zi-Heng Zhu, General Attorney
    INTRODUCTION
    The Veteran served on active duty from September 1943 to August 1946.
    This matter was originally before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2008 decision of the St. Petersburg, Florida Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).  In October 2010, the Veteran appeared at a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ).  In September 2011, the Board issued a decision that denied the claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss.
    ORDER TO VACATE
    The Board may vacate an appellate decision at any time upon request of the appellant or his or her representative, or on the Board's own motion, when an appellant has been denied due process of law.  
    38 U.S.C.A. § 7104
    (a) (West 2002); 
    38 C.F.R. § 20.904
     (2013).
    In September 2013, pursuant to a settlement agreement in the case of National Org. of Veterans' Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 
    725 F.3d 1312
     (Fed. Cir. 2013), the Board sent the Veteran a letter notifying him of an opportunity to receive a new decision from the Board that would correct any potential due process error relating to the duties of the VLJ that conducted the October 2010 hearing.  See Bryant v. Shinseki, 
    23 Vet. App. 488
     (2010) (holding that the requirements of 
    38 C.F.R. § 3.103
    (c)(2) apply to a hearing before the Board and that a VLJ has a duty to explain fully the issues and to suggest the submission of evidence that may have been overlooked).  In September 2013, the Veteran responded that he wished to have the prior decision vacated and a new one issued in its place.
    Accordingly, the September 2011 Board decision is vacated.
    ____________________________________________
    D. C. SPICKLER
    Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals